Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Maryland opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Spring Lake Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2007Id. at 793 (Italics in the original; boldface added.) As in Burke , we believe the grandfather clause in § 304 was meant to limit the construction of residences on undersized lots when a landowner possesses a contiguous, vacant or undeveloped parcel of property. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Valdezgreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319 , 322-23 (4 th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000) (disqualification in federal firearms law related to domestic violence conviction could be applied to defendant without violating Ex Post Facto clause, even though defendant's conviction and original receipt of firearm both preceded addition of that disqualification to the law). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Winston Eugene Mitchell, Sr.green1 sentence2006See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319 , 322-23 (4 th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000) (disqualification in federal firearms law related to domestic violence conviction could be applied to defendant without violating Ex Post Facto clause, even though defendant's conviction and original receipt of firearm both preceded addition of that disqualification to the law). | 1 | 1 |
City of New Orleans v. Dukesgreen2 sentences1977See City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303-306 , 96 S. Ct. 2513, 2516-2518 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976), for a recent case finding a rational basis for a grandfather clause. 1977See City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303-306 , 96 S. Ct. 2513, 2516-2518 , 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976), for a recent case finding a rational basis for a grandfather clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974In United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, 350 U.S. 409 , 100 L.Ed. 482 , the Supreme Court affirmed a reversal by a three-judge District Court of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which had changed the status of a carrier of certain steel items from contract to common, although the carrier served sixty-nine shippers under contract and actively solicited more business. 1957In United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, 350 U. S. 409 , 100 L. | 2 | 1957–1974 |
American Radio-Telephone Service, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
green
1 sentence1982The events following remand were detailed in this Court’s opinion in American Radio-Telephone Service, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 33 Md. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
O. C. Taxpayers for Equal Rights, Inc. v. Mayor of Ocean City
green
2 sentences1981Taxpayers v. Ocean City, 280 Md. 585, 595 , 375 A.2d 541 (1977) (pointing out that "a grandfather clause is justified [on equal protection grounds] by some rationale other than merely conferring a benefit on some to the exclusion of others.”). 1981Taxpayers v. Ocean City, 280 Md. 585, 595 , 375 A.2d 541 (1977) (pointing out that "a grandfather clause is justified [on equal protection grounds] by some rationale other than merely conferring a benefit on some to the exclusion of others.”). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Alton Railroad v. United States
green
2 sentences1974On the other hand, in Alton Railroad Company v. United States, 315 U.S. 15 , 86 L.Ed. 586 , one a contract carrier under Oregon law was held properly granted an Interstate Commerce Commission certificate as a common carrier under a grandfather clause that required "bona fide" operation in a state in the status granted. 1974On the other hand, in Alton Railroad Company v. United States, 315 U.S. 15 , 86 L.Ed. 586 , one a contract carrier under Oregon law was held properly granted an Interstate Commerce Commission certificate as a common carrier under a grandfather clause that required "bona fide" operation in a state in the status granted. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
green
1 sentence1964In Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 , the Supreme Court upheld against challenge under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a provision of a state statute making it unlawful for an optician to fit or duplicate lenses without a prescription from an opthalmologist or optometrist. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
People v. Western Fruit Growers
green
2 sentences1964In Accounting Corp. of America v. State Board of Accountancy, 34 Cal. 2d 186 , 208 P. 2d 984 , that court held a grandfather clause in a statute regulating the practice of accounting to be invalid, but stated that “[i]t is not intended to imply that the legislature is prevented from including in a class only those engaged in a pursuit on a given date, and making no provision for augmentation of the class, for ‘The Legislature, in adopting a policy, may adapt legislation to an existing situation.’ ” In People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal. 2d 494, 140 P. 2d 13 , the court sustained a *116 pr 1964In Accounting Corp. of America v. State Board of Accountancy, 34 Cal. 2d 186 , 208 P. 2d 984 , that court held a grandfather clause in a statute regulating the practice of accounting to be invalid, but stated that “[i]t is not intended to imply that the legislature is prevented from including in a class only those engaged in a pursuit on a given date, and making no provision for augmentation of the class, for ‘The Legislature, in adopting a policy, may adapt legislation to an existing situation.’ ” In People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal. 2d 494, 140 P. 2d 13 , the court sustained a *116 pr | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Accounting Corp. of America v. State Board of Accountancy
green
2 sentences1964In Accounting Corp. of America v. State Board of Accountancy, 34 Cal. 2d 186 , 208 P. 2d 984 , that court held a grandfather clause in a statute regulating the practice of accounting to be invalid, but stated that “[i]t is not intended to imply that the legislature is prevented from including in a class only those engaged in a pursuit on a given date, and making no provision for augmentation of the class, for ‘The Legislature, in adopting a policy, may adapt legislation to an existing situation.’ ” In People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal. 2d 494, 140 P. 2d 13 , the court sustained a *116 pr 1964In Accounting Corp. of America v. State Board of Accountancy, 34 Cal. 2d 186 , 208 P. 2d 984 , that court held a grandfather clause in a statute regulating the practice of accounting to be invalid, but stated that “[i]t is not intended to imply that the legislature is prevented from including in a class only those engaged in a pursuit on a given date, and making no provision for augmentation of the class, for ‘The Legislature, in adopting a policy, may adapt legislation to an existing situation.’ ” In People v. Western Fruit Growers, 22 Cal. 2d 494, 140 P. 2d 13 , the court sustained a *116 pr | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.